Saying it ain't so doesn't provide proof of evolution theory. There is a letter called a dissent of Darwinism. It to is signed by thousands of PhD's from major universities through out the U.S.A. and other countries.
Hundreds. And few of them actually have doctorates in biology. There are theologians, electricians, chemists, etc. Here's a way to match up your appeal to popularity:
Project Steve is lists people who accept evolution theory, who have doctorates in Biology and are named "Steve" or some variant. There are currently well over a thousand of them. Your list, last time I checked, had maybe one named Steve with a doctorate in something close to biology. (Medicine, but it didn't list the degree). So that one falls apart on inspection.
Many European scientists are coming to the same conclusions. I'm not sure you know Behe's theory or not, but it is one tool design theorists are using. I will provide you with a wealth of information on the subject if you like. DNA coding in itself is a blueprint that has a design.
At the Dover trial, under oath, Behe admitted that his "theory" was scientific in the same sense that astrology is scientific. After his testimony, all the other prominent IDers set to testify, decided to skip it. For obvious reasons.
One thing you have to understand about Darwin, he didn't have the kind of instruments he needed to prove his theory. The electron microscope shows how simple systems like cells are mini machines which can not be built incrementally. Darwin described just this type of system himself and said," If it can be shown that a living system can be shown to be so complex that it would not be able to be formed in incremental stages my theory would fall apart".
Sounds like an interesting idea. Show us something in biology that couldn't have formed by increments.
Darwin couldn't see DNA or even something as simple as a bacterial flagellum.
Did you know that the bacterial flagellum is not, as Behe assumed, irreducibly complex? Turns out that there's several versions, each simpler than the last, and one very simplified version has a different function entirely.
You have to remember a lot of scientist got their degrees on the study of evolution theory and anything that challenges that puts their degrees and reputations on the line, so one should expect them to defend them. If they are wrong their degrees are worthless.
You may have noticed the remarkable achievements of modern biology. Turns out those "worthless" degrees are producing new and useful information at an increasing rate. Maybe they know something about biology you don't?
Again there are just as many highly degreed, non-Christian, scientists who absolutely challenge evolution theory.
Interesting claim. Show us.
I've been studying design for years now and if you keep an open mind I am confident you will question evolution theory also.
For years, um? Explain to us how Dembski's "explanitory filter" works.
You might not totally change your mind but you would definitely be stunned and your views would be different. This is scientific information not religious. Not knowing your subject is ignorant.
Yeah, it is. We'll see how you do.
Author